THE USE OF LETTERS IN THE TATLER, SPECTATOR. AND GUARDIAN by PEMBER WILLIAM ROCAP, B.A.

A THESIS IN ENGLISH

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Technological College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Dlrector

Accepted

^-^ <<) • Dean of the Graduatjfir SCAOOI August, 19< ios

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Professor Truman W. Camp for his direction of this Thesis and his en- couragement of my graduate studies.

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ^^ I. INTRODUCTION AND PRECEDENTS 1 II. THE TATLER 9 III. THE SPECTATOR 42 IV. THE GUARDUN 65 V. CONCLUSION 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82

ill CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND PRECEDENTS

The Tatler, Spectator, and Guardian are considered the best of the many endeavors of Addison and Steele in the genre of the periodical essay. All three surpassed any similar works which had appeared before them; and certainly the first two, if not the Guardian also, were never to be equalled. If any single feature appears in issue after issue, volume after volume, it is the letters of which the authors made ample use throughout each of the three periodicals. Over 850 letters or parts of letters were printed in the 272 issues of the Tat­ ler. 555 of the Spectator, and 175 of the Guardian. Some of these letters were authentic, having been submitted by readers most of whose identities must remain hidden behind initials and assumed pen names; many of the letters were fictitious, having been written by Addison or Steele for their own pur­ poses. Others were also written to or by Addison and Steele, but in their capacity as Addison and Steele and not as Mr. Spectator or Isaac Bickerstaff. There were a few letters of classical and other writers of former times which were used for illustrative purposes. In spite of this regular use of letters, the fact is usu­ ally mentioned only in passing by editors and scholars when discussing these periodicals. Typical of this practice is Professor C. Gregory Smith's comment in his notes to the 1 Everyman edition of the Spectator. He simply says that "the letters of correspondents became a feature of the Spectator."^ He then gives the number of the particular issues which stat­ ed Addison's position and mentions that "Steele was, as John­ son tells us, much beholden to outside copyI" Johnson him­ self barely touches on the subject in his Life of Addison: The Spectator had many contributors; and Steele, whose negligence kept him always in a hurry, when it was his turn to furnish a paper, called loudly for letters, of which Addison, whose materials were more, made little use.2 Johnson's oversight is worse than Smith's, not only because he unfairly slights the accomplishment of Steele in order to show Addison in a better light, but because his statement im­ plies that the letters, far from being an important part, were actually rather extraneous to the "real" Spectator. A somewhat more favorable comment, yet one still lacking the proper perspective, is Richmond P. Bond's in the Introduction of Studies in the Early English Periodicals. He says the "Tatler and Spectator laced rather than diluted their essays with correspondence both genuine and minted for the issue."^

^C. Gregory Smith (ed.). The Spectator (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., Everyman's Library, 1963), I, 514. ^Samuel Johnson, Lives of the English Poets, ed. G.B. Hill (Oxford, 1905), II, 108. ^Richmond P. Bond, Studies in the Early English Peri­ odical (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 195777 P- 19. However complimentary Bond may be, he still failed to view the letters as an Integral part of the periodicals rather than something "tacked on," as the use of the word "laced" suggests. In this sense, he is almost as inaccurate as the others in his treatment of the letters; certainly he is just as incomplete, for he says no more about them. But Bond did atone for both his inaccuracy and incom­ pleteness in another Introduction, this time to his edition of New Letters to the Tatler and Spectator. After dealing extensively with the variety of letters used, while saying very little about the actual uses and functions of the let­ ters, he concludes with this statement: The letter became not an adjunct or a merely congenial accessory but a component contri­ buting abundance and variety to the central unity of these two Augustan journals.^ He recognizes the letters as' a "component" rather than an "accessory," but he failed to see that they contributed more than "variety and abundance" to the periodicals. For the most part. Bond discusses the use of letters in the Spectator rath­ er than In the Spectator and Tatler; the Guardian is not even mentioned. The only other scholar who has gone beyond merely men­ tioning that letters were used throughout the periodicals is

^Richmond P. Bond, New Letters to the Tatler and Spec­ tator (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1959), p. 14. Hereafter referred to as Bond. Henry Pettit.5 His discussion, like Bond's, is mostly con- cerned with the Spectator, little with the Tatler. and not at all with the Guardian. Also, his discussion is limited to the use of the letters solely in relation to Steele as an ed­ itor. I generally agree with his conclusions as far as they go, but because of the one-sided nature of his discussion, his conclusions are incomplete. In addition, he makes a few questionable statements which I will take issue with in later chapters. Thus, although Addison and Steele used letters in their major periodicals to the extent that almost everyone who has since written about those periodicals has recognized their presence (the sheer number of the letters in the periodicals cannot be ignored), very few have gone beyond the single statement; and even the discussions of those few are incom­ plete, being limited usually to the letters found in the Spectator and to the variety of letters used. In effect, the full significance of the use of letters in the Tatler, Spec­ tator, and Guardian has never been discussed; all o^ the rea­ sons for this use have never been given; and the relation of this use of letters, not only to Addison, Steele, and other contributors, but to the format of the periodicals has never been accurately or completely understood. This thesis will

5Henry Pettlt, "Letters to the Editor: Steele's Famil­ iar Way of Writing," University of Colorado Studies. Series In Language and Literature. No. 9 (August, 1963), pp. 92-99. Hereafter referred to as Pettlt. 5 resolve all of the preceding problems. As Calhoun Wlnton says when referring to the Tatler and Spectator in his biography of Steele, "almost everything in both papers had been anticipated somewhere, in some periodi­ cal. "6 "Almost everything" Included the use of letters. Not only was there a pre-established interest in publishing let­ ters when the Tatler first appeared in 1709, the English had been receiving most of their news by letter and by news peri­ odicals in letter form for over a century; therefore the use of letters to convey news, political or social, did not in the least way seem strange to them. In addition, several prominent periodicals preceding the Tatler had been built en­ tirely around a questlon-and-answer motif. Because all of these practices did exert some influence upon Addison and Steele's use of letters in their own periodicals, they must be recognized in this thesis, if only cursorily examined. The Interest li^ letters prior to the time of the Tatler cannot be denied, Helen Sard Hughes makes this point very clear; she also lists several conditions in the seventeenth century which were conducive to the interest in letters in the eighteenth century: Letter-writing for purposes of literature or real life received impetus in the seven­ teenth century from several sources: (1) the emphasis in the school curriculum on the

"Calhoun Wlnton, Captain Steele (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1964), p. 105. Hereafter referred to as Win- ton. translation and imitation of Latin epistles; (2) the vogue of the familiar letter in France and England; (3) the Improvement of the postal system in the second half of the seventeenth century, facilitating and stimulating corre­ spondence; (4) the editing of newspapers and periodicals in letter form; (5) the publica­ tion of numerous manuals of letter writing.' Of special importance as a precedent for the Tatler. Spec­ tator. 8ind Guardian is number four: "the editing of news­ papers and periodicals in letter form." The publication of printed news was not sanctioned in England until the end of the reign of James I.® Many states­ men and wealthy families, however, had their own private let­ ter writers to keep them informed. According to Symonds, these professional writers of "letters of news" eventually became quite common. Thus, the term "newsletter" originally had a very literal meaning. Most of the early newspapers were in the form of letters or Included letters in their for­ mat because most of the news the papers received was derived from real letters. Even closer to the work of Addison and Steele, tempo­ rally as well as stylistically, than were the early newspapers

^Helen Sard Hughes, "English Epistolary Fiction Before Pamela," The Manly Anniversary Studies in Language and Literature (Chicago; The University of Chicago Press, 1923), p. 156. 8R.V. Symonds, The Rise of English Journalism (Exeter: A. Wheaton and Company, Ltd., 1952), p. 9. This book con­ tains examples of the work of the outstanding early newswrlt- ers and is the source for most of the information In this paragraph. 7 was John Dunton's Athenian Mercury (I691-1697), which depended entirely on questions sent by the readers. For the first time, the readers were asked to participate actively in a publication through the mall; the response was so quick and so great that Dunton could make this statement in the second issue: "Having encouragement by a great many letters to con­ tinue our Gazette ... we shall endeavour as general a sat­ isfaction as we can."^ In issue No. 3. one week later. Dun- ton says, "we find the Questions grow so fast upon us . . . we intend to publish our paper twice a week." By April 28, 1691, an advertisement in No. 11 announced that readers were to send their letters until April 30 by which time there woiad be enough letters to fill the first volujne (30 issues). Obviously the English were just as eager to write as they were to read; at least eager enough to keep the Athenian Mer­ cury alive for five years, a relatively old age in a species most of whose members never survived past the first issue. Lasting somewhat longer, so much so that it was not only a predecessor but also a contemporary of the Tatler. Spectator. and even the Guardian, was Daniel Defoe's A Weekly Review of the Affairs of France (1704-1713). Defoe's use of letters was even more in the spirit of what Addison and Steele's was to be than was Dunton's. Whereas Dunton used only reader's questions about philosophy and religion, Defoe, in Advice from the Scandalous Club, received not only questions but

9Athenian Mercury. No. 2, March 24, I691. 8 letters seeking advice about the whole range of social prob­ lems; often the letters presenting the problem resembled an essay and they almost always gave Defoe the opportunity to write an essay on the particular topic for an answer. In addition, just as Addison and Steele were to do, Defoe did not hesitate to Include a few of his OWH fictitious letters from time to time. But all of these uses of letters were simply forerunners, precedents which were not to be taken full advantage of or completely developed until Addison and Steele began making their reputations as the best periodical essayists of all. The time Is April, 1709. The place is London. Enter Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire, CHAPTER II

THE TATLER

When the Tatler first appeared on April 12, 1709, Steele shrewdly distributed the first four Issues gratis in order to Interest the London readers; he also showed his shrewdness by choosing as the name for his "Tatler," a character in whom the London readers were already interested and with whom they were already acquainted, Isaac Bickerstaff. Bickerstaff, a creation of Jonathan Swift, was a fictitious astrologer who had foretold in "Predictions for the Year 1708" the death of another very much alive astrologer, John Partridge. When the Tatler appeared, London was still chuckling over the many protestations of Partridge that he was not dead and over the equally numerous accounts of witnesses that he was. But even Bickerstaff, in his old role of astrologer, could not have predicted the success he would attain in his new role as Tat­ ler. During its publication—April 12, 1709 to January 2, 1711—271 Issues appeared. Steele not only was the initiator of the Tatler but he dominated it as far as authorship of in­ dividual Issues was concerned: approximately 183 Issues of the Tatler are attributed to Steele alone, 42 to Addison alone, and 36 to both of them working togetherJ The authorship of

^L.T. Berguer, editor of The British Essayists (London, 1823), is the source for the figures of distribution of essays to authors; Berguer's authority was Nathan Drake in Essays illustrative of the Tatler, Guardian, and Spectator (1805). Hereafter referred to as Berguer. 10 many of the essays in all three periodicals is obscure; there­ fore, no definite number of essays can be assigned to any author. While the question of authorship is an Important one, and one which is currently being studied by several competent scholars,2 it is beyond the scope of this thesis, which is concerned solely with Individual authors in relation to the use of letters. And letters there were. A total of 212 letters or parts of letters appeared in a little less than half, 118 Issues, of the Tatler essays. Just as Steele was the writer of the most essays, he was also the greatest user of the letter: 191 letters in 107 of the 183 issues for which he is given credit. Of the remaining letters, Addison used thirteen; the rest were written by known contributors. Swift and Hughes for Instance, and were included in an issue which, in its entire­ ty, is usually attributed to Addison or Steele. Steele's frequent use of the letter in the beginning can be ascribed not to any lack of imagination or creative abil­ ity, for a good case can be presented to show that such a practice requires more of both qualities, but to his position as the one responsible for seeing that the Tatler appeared when it was supposed to (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday) and for maintaining its popularity.5

^Donald Bond is currently working on the Tatler and Spectator and John C. Stephens is working on the Guardian. 5AS I will show in a later chapter, Addison's use of the letters increased as they became an accepted part of the for­ mat of the periodicals. 11 The use that the Tatler was to meOce of letters was ap­ parent from the outset of the periodical; and by a variety of methods was stressed and kept uppermost in the minds of its readers throughout its publication: the section of news from St. James's Coffee-house, essays on letter writing, re­ peated calls for letters to be submitted by the readers, and frequent statements of editorial policy toward letters kept Tatler readers letter-conscious. The section of the early Tatler headed "From St. James's Coffee-house"^ contained the diplomatic and foreign news. Not only the spirit but the actual practice of the old news- writers mentioned on page six was retained in this particular aspect of the Tatler. Letters were still the best way to receive intelligence from the continent; and Steele's posi­ tion as writer of the official government paper, the London Gazette, gave him immediate access to the news.5 The news

^The original design of the Tatler was to provide, in each issue, different areas of news from the coffee-house associated with that area: White's was the gathering-place of men of fashion so the news of gallantry was to originate there; St. James's was near the court and frequented by gov­ ernment officials who would naturally be aware of the latest dispatches from the continent. This design was eventually abandoned; most of the later issues were written from a sin­ gle place, usually "From My Apartment." This shift occurred simultaneously with the ever increasing practice of devoting each issue to a single topic. ^For a full discussion of Steele's dual role of Bicker­ staff and Gazetteer, and the reasons for the gradual elimi­ nation of the St. James's department, see Robert Waller Achurch, "Richard Steele, Gazetteer and Bickerstaff," Studies in Early English Periodicals, ed. Richmond Bond (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1957), PP. 49-72. 12 in this section always began "Letters from the Hague of the sixteenth say,V 70ur last advices from Germany Inform us," or "Letters from Turin of the third Instant." In No. 29, Bickerstaff, instead of referring to a letter, published one, the first to actually appear in the St. James's section. While the newsletters were the first letters to be used in the Tatler they were not the last. Even before an invitation was issued to the readers of the Tatler to write, the initiative to correspond had been taken by those readers; the receipt of letters was acknow­ ledged by Bickerstaff in the earliest Issues, thus indirectly inviting correspondence from other readers by showing that letters were not only being written to the Tatler but were being well-received. Tatler No. £ concluded with this note: Mr. Bickerstaff thanks Mr. Quarterstaff for his kind and instructive letter dated the 26th Instant.6 The next issue ends with Mr. Bickerstaff has received the epistles of Mrs. Rebecca Wagstaff, Timothy Pikestaff, and Wagstaff, which he will acknowledge farther as occasion shall serve (No, 9). Bickerstaff's sister, Jenny Distaff, who was in charge of No. 10, acknowledged Nathaniel Broomstick's letter in a note at the end.

^The edition of the Tatler used in this thesis is that found in The British Essayists, ed. L.T. Berguer (London, 1823), Vols, I-V, Quotations are documented by giving the number, in parentheses, of the particular issue from which the quotation Is taken. The same practice will be continued with reference to the Spectator and Guardian, 13 The first formal invitation for readers to submit their letters was made in No. 11; and, in accordance with Bicker- staff's design of having "something which may be of enter­ tainment to the fair sex" (No. 1), the invitation was to the ladies: Any Ladies who have any particular stories of their acquaintance, which they are willing privately to make public, may send them by penny-post to Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq. enclosed to Mr. John Morphew, near Stationers' Hall. Usually when the call went out for letters, Bickerstaff wanted help with a specific topic: ... an officer in the army , . . desires I would do justice to many gallant actions which have been done by men of private characters, or officers of lower stations, during this long war.... . There is nothing I should undertake with greater pleasure than matters of this kind; if therefore they, who are acquainted with such facts, would please to communicate them, by letters directed to me at Mr. Morphew's, no pains would be spared to put them in a proper and distinguishing light (No. 56). In connection with his project of making a Table of Fame, an invitation was made, in No. 67, to the "learned world" to send in the lists of people who they felt were worthy of a place at the table; the invitation was repeated in No. 74. Sometimes the desire was for little known knowledge of gen­ eral Interest: If, therefore, any one can bring any tale or tidings of Illustrious persons, or glorious actions, that are not commonly known, he is desired to send an account thereof to me, at J. Morphew's, auad they shall have justice done them (No. 84). 14 At other times, the request was for specific information from an individual correspondent: The Censor having lately received intel­ ligence, that the ancient simplicity in the dress and manners of that part of this island called Scotland begins to decay; and that there are at this time, in the good town of Edinburgh, Beaux, Pops, and Coxcombs; his late correspondent from that place is de­ sired to send up their names and characters with all expedition, that they may be pro­ ceeded against accordingly (No. 144). Bickerstaff even asked his readers to do some of his work for him. When he could not answer some of the problems that were sent to him, he would "appeal to the judgement of others" (No. 212); he even asked them to be proofreaders of his paper: I must desire my readers to help me out from time to time in the correction of my Essays; for as a shaking hand does not always write legibly, the press sometimes prints one word for another; and when my paper is to be re­ vised, I am perhaps so busy observing the spots of the moon, that I have not time to find out the errata that are crept into my Lucubrations (No. 101). But some letters he did not welcome; especially undeslreiwere those with postage due: Whereas Mr. Bickerstaff has lately re­ ceived a letter out of Ireland, dated June the ninth, importing, that he is grown very dull, for the postage of which Mr. Morphew charges one shilling; and another . . . for which he . . . charges two-pence: it is de­ sired, that for the future, his courteous and vmcourteous readers will go a little far­ ther in expressing their good and ill-will, and pay for the carriage of their letters (No. 186). Direct invitation to write was probably the most productive way of encouraging correspondence, but it was not the only 15 way; essays on letters in general and criticism and comments on specific letters constantly reminded readers of the Tat­ ler' s Interest in letters. "The French humour of writing epistles, and publishing their fulsome complaints to each other," wrote Bickerstaff in No. 93, "is a thing I frequently complain of in this place"; he elaborated by saying he would prefer his friends to make him wish to be with them rather than their writing that they wished to be with him. He also disapproved of those critics who examine letters "by the rules of epistolary writing" because these gentlemen are seldom men of great genius, they work altogether by mechanical rules, and are able to discover no beauties that are not pointed out by Bonhours and Rapin (No. 87). As for himself, Bickerstaff added in the same issue, "I take a very particular satisfaction in seeing any letter that is fit only for those to read who are concerned in it." Bickerstaff felt that, because of the nature of his peri­ odical, everything was the concern of himself and his readers: the title of this paper gives me a right in taking myself, and inserting in it, all such parts of any book or letter which are foreign to the purpose intended, or professed, by the writer . . . all . . . unfit for that place is very proper to be inserted here (No. 51). He carries out this editorial policy three Issues later by publishing a letter complaining of the noisy Stentor at St. Paul's (in reality. Dr. William Stanley, Dean of St. Paul). That the letters sent in to the Tatler were often edited before appearing in print was not a secret; there was no hesi­ tation in admitting within the body ^of the Tatler that such 16 was the practice. Before publishing a letter from "A.B.," Bickerstaff introduces it by saying A very clean, well-behaved gentleman, who is in a very good way in Cornhill, has writ the following lines; and seems in some passages of his letter, which I omit, to lay it very much to heart, that I have not spoken of supernatural beauty (No. 145). In fact, the letters which were not edited before appearing were worthy of notice. Bickerstaff would Introduce untouched letters with statements like I shall at present lay the matter before the world, without the least alteration from the words of my correspondent (No, 230) and I am not so much hurt as to stifle any part of his fond letter (No. 195). Perhaps, in order to save himself some extra editorial work, Bickerstaff laid down rules for his correspondents to follow when they wrote letters to him: I cannot forbear advertising my correspon­ dents, that I think myself treated by some of them after too familar a manner, and in phrases that neither become them to give, nor me to take. I shall therefore desire for the future, that if anyone returns me an answer to a letter, he will not tell me he has received the favour of my letter; but if he does not think fit to say he has received the honour of it, that he tells me in plain English he has received my letter of such a date. I must likewise insist, that he would conclude with, J am with great respect, or plainly, I^ am, without farther addition; and not Insult me, by an assurance of his being with great truth and esteem my humble servant. There is likewise another mark of superiority which I cannot bear; and / therefore must inform my correspondents, that I discard all faithful humble servants, and am resolved to read no letters that are not subscribed, your most obedient or most humble servant, or both (No. 78). 17 The great majority of the letters that were published there­ after ended with both of his suggested closings. The letters used in the periodical offer as wide an assortment as the subject matter covered in the Issues them­ selves. For this reason, it is difficult to find any system of categorizing the letters which includes them all. By grouping them several different ways, by purpose, people, authenticity, and subject, their diversity can be totally perceived. If the purpose of the letters, as presented in the let­ ters themselves, is used as the criterion, the letters can be grouped as (l) those either praising or admonishing the Tatler. (2) those seeking advice, or (3) those asking that a specific subject be discussed by Bickerstaff, Most of the letters which appeared in the Tatler. sup­ posedly written by readers, usually began with a matter-of- fact statement telling Bickerstaff that "you have been pleased to make yourself so famous of late, by your ingenious writ­ ings" (No. 11) or by the reader's saying he is "convinced, as the whole world is, how Infallible your predictions are" (No. 228), Bickerstaff was able to "suppress that pride and vanity which naturally arise in the mind of a received author" (No. 164). A great many of these saccharine decla­ rations of Bickerstaff's virtues have probably been very wisely edited from the papers which did eventually appear. Proof that more praises were present than have been left in the letters that eventually appeared can be found by examining 18 the letters which did not appear and were never edited.' These letters abound in examples of individual appreciation of Bickerstaff, Some are rather subtly complimentary, like the reader who said he bought a set of Tatlers "out of a great veneration I have for men of sense and learning" (Lillle, Vol. I, letter No. 16); others are candid expres­ sions of approval, such as the opening statement of letter No. 38, Vol. I, of Lillle's collection: "The pleasure which I all along found in reading your tatlers is such, that I have frequently resolved to send you my thanks." Even the Q advertisements were praised for their effectiveness. In Tatler No. 94. a letter of Charles Lillle, a frequent ad­ vertiser, is referred to in which he says several of Bick­ erstaff' s "gentle readers" have obliged him in buying at Lillle's shop on Bickerstaff's recommendation. A John Hammond, who "put in an advertisement . . . about a watch which was lost," says the footman who returned it would not have done so "if he had not read your discourse of that day against avarice" (No. 124).

7 Charles Lillle, a perfumer whose advertisements frequent­ ly appeared in the Tatler and Spectator and who not only took in letters for these two periodicals but wrote a few himself, collected the letters that were never used, and published them in two volumes called Original and Genuine Letters Sent to the Author of the Tatlers and Spectators During the Time Those were publishing (London. 1725). Hereafter referred to as Lillle ^Unfortunately most of these advertisements are omitted in the reprinted editions of the Tatler, Spectator, and Guar­ dian. I cannot but lament that these omissions are not avail­ able to the general reader, for they are probably as interest­ ing as the essays themselves. See P.W. Bateson, "The Errata in the Tatler." RES. Vol. 5 (AprU, 1929), PP. 155-166, 19 But Bickerstaff's "lucubrations" were not praised by everyone. An indignant Ezeklel Stiffrump wrote in No. 78 that he and several friends, after perusing an earlier issue, have taken offence: forasmuch as thou ex- cludest out of the brotherhood all persons who are praise-vj^orthy for religion, we are afraid that thou wilt fill thy table with none but heathens, and cannot hope to spy a brother there. Others complained, not of being excluded, but of being in­ cluded in the Tatler's papers. Witness this "rotten" letter from Monoculus: You are a very impudent fellow to put me into the Tatler, Rot you. Sir, I have more wit than you; and rot me, I have more money than most fools I have bubbled. All persons of quality admire me; though, rot me if I value a blue garter any more than I do a blue apron. Every body knows I am brave; therefore have a care how you provoke MONOCULUS (No. 74). Isaac, constantly maintaining the same BickerstaffIan de­ meanor, published his letter of reply immediately following the above, concluding with this injimction: "Keep your temper, wash your face, and go to bed." Not only could he remain calm in the face of such personal abuse, Bickerstaff could frankly agree with the statement of one of his cor­ respondents that he was "very much censured by some, and as much justified by others" (No. 89); he could even see advan­ tages of the letters of \msatisfled readers. Perhaps in the spirit which one correspondent called hitting "the true na­ ture of things, in making even trifles significant" Bicker­ staff wrote 20 It would indeed be very dangerous for me to read over the many praises and eiilogiums, which come post to me from all the corners of the nation, were they not mixed with many checks,- reprimands, scurrilities, and re­ proaches (No. 164), And although he does not print these letters as such, he does present the opening lines from a few of them: "'You old doting scoundrell—Are not you a sad dog?—Sirrah, you de­ serve to have your nose slit.'" Those who thought Bickerstaff deserved to have his nose slit were in the minority; most of the correspondents re­ tained confidence in Bickerstaff's ability to fulfill his announced purpose of offering something, whereby • . . worthy and well- affected members of the commonwealth may be Instructed, after their reading, what to think . . . wherein I shall from time to time report and consider all matters of what kind soever that shall occur to me, and pub­ lish such my advice and reflections (No. 1). They displayed that confidence by flooding Bickerstaff, to use his own term, with letters seeking advice and asking that his next paper be a treatise on such and such a subject. In No. 69, Bridget Eltherslde gives an account of two women, both wishing to be married to the same man in order not to destroy their friendship, who desire Bickerstaff's opinion before proceeding, T.T. asks about the education of his nine- year old daughter in No. l4l and says that he and his wife "have agreed to be decided by your judgement and . . . shall manage our daughter exactly as you shall please to direct." One man wished to know if any of his acquaintance should take 21 advantage of him because he was afflicted with the gravel (No. 89). Another even asked Bickerstaff to "put me in some method of doing nothing" (No. 176); his request was accompanied by a letter from his daughter asking Bickerstaff to desire that her father first leave nothing to do, that is, "let him marry off his daughter." A more urgent plea for advice came from a virgin (No. 210), who asked whether she . "ought to be prevailed upon by the impertinences of my own sex, to give way to the importunities of yours." Obviously, the problems correspondents expected Bick­ erstaff to solve were just as varied as the subjects he wrote about and about which they expected him to write; if a certain subject had not yet been covered in a Tatler. the oversight was usually brought to Bickerstaff's attention through the mall. Thus, in No. 190, Bickerstaff says he has had the "honour to be pelted with several epistles to ex­ postulate" on party-writing; two actors of the day, William Bullock and William Penkethman, desired Bickerstaff to com­ pare them as he had previously compared Gibber and Wilks (No. 189); "Plain English" asked for a definition of Simplex Mundltiis as a description of a well-dressed woman (No. 212) and in the same issue an unknown correspondent asked for an explanation of the dubious phrasing in an account of General Stanhope in battle, which said that Stanhope "expressed as much bravery as conduct." The variety of subjects that read­ ers requested to be treated by Bickerstaff are numerous. Once such a letter appeared in the Tatler. a treatment of the 22 suggested topic was almost certain to follow;^ and, as I will show later in this chapter, this use of the letters to intro­ duce a topic became a favorite and established device. Whether the correspondents' avowed purpose was to praise or castigate Bickerstaff, to ask for advice or ask that a cer­ tain subject be treated in the paper, their real purpose in writing, and one which they all had in common, was to have their letters published in the Tatler. Although the desire of the Londoners to appear in a Tatler was not as great as their desire to appear in the Tatler's successor, the Spectator, the desire was present nevertheless. As early as No. 27, the Tatler was recognized as a quick vehicle to fame, for Bicker­ staff says I have so many messages from young gentlemen who expect preferment and distinction, that I am wholly at a loss in what manner to ac­ quit myself. The writer of the following letter tells me in a postscript, he cannot go out of town until I have taken some notice of him, and is very urgent to be somebody in it, before he returns to . . . the imiversity.

9The letters in Lillle and in Richmond Bond's New Letters to the Tatler and Spectator (Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1959), that is those letters which did not appear, are equally full of suggested topics. In most cases, they either duplicated other requests or suggested a topic which was re­ petitive of fomier issues; in other cases, Steele usually referred to the letters in the issue proper as being sugges­ tive of that day's subject. Typical of the requests in the unpublished letters is No. 38 in Lillle, Vol. I: "P.S. Pray oblige the world with your thoughts concerning Pedantry, wherein it doeo, and wherein.* it does not con­ sist," 23 Most of the requests for insertion were not as desperate as that of the young gentleman referred to above. Often the correspondents would attempt to increase the merit of their letters by telling Bickerstaff how their letter would benefit other readers. T.T. ended his letter, which did appear in No. 141, "Sir, pray answer it in your Tatler, that it may be serviceable to the public." Others, like "Disconsolat Al- melra," who wrote the following, forthrightly asked Bicker­ staff to include their letter in his Tatler: Sir, you will do me a sensable pleasure, and very great honour, if you will please to insert this poor scrole, with your answer to it, in your Tatler,^^ Even such a simple request did not Insure a letter's publi­ cation; Lillle's volumes are full of letters containing statements like If you please to give it a place in your Tatlers, you will very much oblige . . . Your most humble servant, J.M. (Lillle, Vol. I, No. 23) and If you think the following verses worthy a place in your tatlers, I desire you would please to Insert them as soon as you have room (Lillle, Vol. I, No. 40). These letters very obviously never appeared. To prevent the same fate from happening to their letters, many writers attempted to persuade Bickerstaff with something more than the Inherent worth of the letter. The gifts, or

lO^he letter is replete with spelling errors and was pub­ lished, not for any literary merit, but for the lack of same. 24 in some cases the bribes, that Addison and Steele received in the capacity of periodical essayists are deserving of a separate monograph. The readers were just beginning to get the idea about submitting gifts to Increase the chances for their letters to appear in the Tatler. and as their desire to appear in print increased in the Spectator, so did the ends to which they would go in order to have those desires satis- fled. To be sure, many of the gifts were from merchants or other advertisers who had successfully advertised in the Tat­ ler and were showing their appreciation; or the gifts were from those merchants who were hopeful that Bickerstaff would say a good word for them after he had sampled their merchan­ dise. The desire of these people to appear in the Tatler was sparked by the same hope for fame as was the desire of the regular correspondents, if not also accompanied by overtones of monetary profit. Sometimes cold, hard cash was offered, as in this offer taken notice of at the end of No. 118: Mr. Bickerstaff has under consideration the offer from the corporation of Colchester of four hundred pounds per annum to be paid quarterly, provided that all his dead per­ sons shall be obliged to wear the baize of that place. Once Bickerstaff came home to find a gift "from Mr. Charles Lillle, the perfumer, at the corner of Beaufort-buildings, with a letter of thanks for the mention I made of him" (No. 94). Bickerstaff was not always so willing to advertise a person's shop or wares just because he received complimentary 25 samples; the quality of the merchandise was of the utmost importgince. He mentions some other bribes, unsuccessful be­ cause of lack of quality, in No. 147: a butcher in Clare-market, who endeavoured to corrupt me with a dozen and a half marrow bones and, second, a bribe sent me by a fishmonger, consisting of a collar of brawn, and a jole of salmon. The most common of all the gifts he received was wine, a type of gift which probably pleased the convivial Steele more than did any other."''' As the following quotations show, the gifts of wine poured in: I received the following letter with a dozen of wine, and cannot but do justice to the liquor, and give my testimony (No. 231). At my coming home last night, I found upon my table the following petition or project, sent me from Lloyd's coffee-house in the city with a present of Port-wine, which had been bought at a late auction held in that place (No. 268). Upon my coming home last night, I found a very handsome present of wine left for me (No. 147). Usually he was given the wine in order that he might publicly praise it, thus increasing the business of the giver. Half- seriously, half-facetiously trying to derive as much benefit as possible from his advantageous position, Bickerstaff wrote the following statement in No. 147:

^^That Steele drank is a well-known fact; and as he was the editor of the Tatler. all gifts must have gone to him. All of the issues which contain references to the gifts, not only the wine but everything else, are attributed to Steele. 26 I must give notice to my correspondents for the future, who shall apply to me on this occasion, that, as I shall decide nothing unadvisedly in matters of this nature, I can­ not pretend to give judgement of a right good liquor, without examining at least three dozen bottles of it.(The italics are mine3 Whatever impression the preceding statement might give to the contrary, wine was not the only kind of present the Tatler was Interested in. At the end of No. 137, he published this notice: The lady who has chosen Mr. Bickerstaff for her Valentine, and is at a loss what to pre­ sent him with, is desired to make him, with her own hands, a warm night-cap. One writer asked Bickerstaff to publish his letter to a lady and then wrote I should be ashamed to give you this trouble without offering at some small requital: I shall therefore direct a new pair of globes, and a telescope of the best maker, to be left for you at Mr. Morphew's, as a testimony of the great respect with which I am (No. 128). But the strangest of all the gifts received by the Tatler was the one promised on the back of a letter appearing in No. 219: "If you will draw Mrs. Cicely Trlppet according to the en­ closed description, I will forgive you all." Perhaps the strangeness of the request and the sender was responsible for the strangeness of the promise. Most of the people who had this great desire to appear in the Tatler are just as anonymous today as they were when they originally submitted their letters. Very few of the letters are signed by real names; many have no signature at all; and the signatures that end the other letters are either 27 initials or a nom de plume which characterized the condition of the sender as revealed in his letter. In addition to the correspondents who have been previously mentioned, letters appeared from the hand of Cynthio, Emilia, Pompey, Lemuel leger. Philomath, Amindab, Philanthropes, Philander, Careless, Constant, and Caelia; letters appeared also from the more imaginative Hxmphrey Kidney, Job Chanticleer, Isabella Kit, Tom Folio, Sarah Lately, Richard Trafflck, Lovewell Bare- bones, Rebecca Mldriffe, Solomon Afterwlt, Diana Doubtful, Deborah Hark, Sarah Threadpaper, Rachel Thimble, Ralph and Bridget Yokefellow, Humphrey Wlldalr, Josiah Fairlove, Obadiah Greenhat, Tobiah Greenhat, Josiah Couplet, Jonathan Rosehat, Will Trusty, Alexander Landlord, Diana Forecast, Lady Gim-r crack, Ralph Nab, Felix Tranqulllus, Elizabeth Slender, Patience Friendly, John Thrifty, Charles Sturdy, and many others. Although Bickerstaff did admit that some of the above- mentioned were friends, most of them were strangers; however, he did have some letter-writing "relatives," some invented by Steele, others by ingenious readers who wrote him letters. As Bickerstaff's popularity Increased, he, like any man who has suddenly gained fame or wealth or both, found himself with more relatives than he ever knew he had. Naturally his sister, Jenny Distaff, and a cousin, Francis Bickerstaff, were accepted members of the family; somewhat removed were Benjamin Beadlestaff, Ephriam Bedstaff, and Mr. Procterstaff; 28 even further removed, so much so that their claim was ques­ tionable, were Tom Switch who claimed to be "a cousin but one remove from the best family of the Staffs," Offspring Twig, "a distant relation," Lady Whittlestick, Mrs. Biddy Twig, and a completely unknown relation, Dorothy Drumstick; known to all was "Bread the Staff of Life" who submitted a poem. Other relatives whose letters were acknowledged were D. Distaff, Mr. Colstaff, Mr. Whlpstaff, Mrs. Rebecca Wagstaff, another Wagstaff, Nathaniel Broomstick, Mr. Quarterstaff, and Timothy Pikestaff.

Thus far the letters have been discussed from within themselves by their stated or implied purpose and signature at the end. Another way of categorizing them, and perhaps a more realistic way, is by their authenticity. Seen in this way, the letters fall into four groups: (1) the real and fictitious letters sent to Bickerstaff and his answers; (2) the letters sent in by well-known correspondents, such as Swift and Hughes; (3) real letters written by ancient and contemporary writers not expressly meant for the Tatler; and (4) real letters sent or received by Addison and Steele which appeared in the Tatler in a guise different from that in which they were originally written. The largest of these groups, because it contains not only most of the real letters actually sent to Bickerstaff, but all of the fictitious ones, is the first; it is also the group about which less can be definitely said. Since the authorship of almost all of these letters is hidden behind 29 initials or pen names, determining which are real and which are fictitious is Impossible; in addition, the fact that Steele freely edited those letters which he did receive makes Identification by style impossible, since, except in rare cases where the ungrammatical or otherwise extraordinary style of a letter is intentionally retained, the style of the letters is the same throughout the periodical. This similarity of style apparently prompted Nick Doubt to ask Bickerstaff did not you write that letter in praise of the Squire and his Lucubrations yourself (No, 91). Bickerstaff's answer is revealing: I must confess, I am as likely to play such a trick as another; but that letter he speaks of was really genuine. When I first set up, I thought it fair enough to let myself know from all parts, that my works were wonderfully in­ quired for, and were become the diversion, as well as instruction, of all , , , of Great Bri­ tain. I do not doubt but the more intelligent of my readers found it, before this jackanapes. In this same group are those letters which Bickerstaff wrote as answers to the ones he received; and those letters Bick­ erstaff wrote as admonitions to guilty people throughout London. Here again, authenticity is impossible to determine. Can they be considered "real" letters only if they were in response to "real" letters? Or does their very existence make them real? Closely related to the letters of the first group are those letters, also sent to Bickerstaff, but by well-known writers who are given credit for contributing to the Tatler 30 because of their letters.. With the exception of Addison and Steele, John Hughes and Jonathan Swift are the only contri­ butors of more than a few pieces; interestingly enough, most of their contributions are in the form of letters, Hughes wrote at least five letters, two of which are unsigned and three others signed Josiah Couplet, Philanthropes, and Will Trusty. Although Swift's authorship of a few letters has been questioned,12 ^e is usually credited with the letters signed Tobiah Greenhat, Obadian Greenhat, Charles Sturdy, Eliz. Potatrlx, Ephriam Bedstaff, and several more unsigned ones. Other known letter writers to the Tatler are Heneage Twisden, Jsimes Greenwood, and Congreve."*^ Some of the letters did appear signed with the real name or initials of the contributor. Charles Lillie, John Ham­ mond, William Bullock and William Penkethman have already been mentioned. A letter from Thomas Doggett, the playwright, appeared in No. 120; Powell, the puppeteer, signed his name to a few letters; a letter also appeared from"Th. CI.," Thomas Clement; and, in the same issue, No. 258, a letter was sign­ ed "j.S.V"M.P. ," and"N.R.r the initials of Jonathan Swift, Mathew Prior, and Nicholas Rowe. More will be said in a later chapter of this practice of known contributors msLking their contributions in the fonn of letters.

I^see Rae Blanchard, The Correspondence of Richard Steele (London, 1941), pp. 33-34. ''^Information taken from Berguer's introduction to the Tatler in The British Essayists. 31 Another type of authentic letter used by the Tatler are those letters written by real people to other people, which are used as examples, illustrations, or diversions in the Tatler. Among contemporaries so honored were Marshall Bouf- flers, whose letter to the French king appears in No, 77, and Madame Malntenon to Monsieur Torcy in No. 19; both of these letters were of interest to readers of that time because of their connection with the current war with the French. Of equal interest, but for a different reason, were those let­ ters of the ancients which were used as illustrations, exam­ ples, and for purely edifying reasons; several letters of Pliny, "who writes very much like a modern," and of Cicero, which are "full of that beautiful simplicity," are so used. In the final group are the real letters of Addison and Steele that are not presented as such. In No. 20, Addison wrote "I shall communicate to my readers part of a letter I have received from an Ingenious friend at Amsterdam"; he did not add that he had written the letter while he was in Europe to John Wyche. In No. 93, another of his travel letters written during this same tour, this time to Congreve, appeared in its entirety. Between these two Issues, Steele had made similar use of one of his love-letters to Mary Scurlock; the letter was changed little from the original and was presented as a perfect example of a man accosting a woman "in a strain of familiarity, without break:ing through the deference that is due to" her (No. 35). 32 As has already been shown, the subject matter of the letters was just as varied as the readers and the issues themselves; any attempt to divide them into meaningful groups is impractical. 14 However, there is one large group of let­ ters that do deserve to be recognized, the writers of which were more numerous in their correspondence and more urgent in their desire for help than were others who wrote to the Tatler: those letters dealing with love and its many prob­ lems. The fact that Bickerstaff received so many letters of this nature is not surprising; almost from the beginning he considered love to be well within the scope of his paper. In No. 29, he presented a letter as it would be written by one who felt that "the way ... to gain a lady's heart is taking her as we do towns and castles , . . and letting none come near without our pass," In the next issue, after calling at Will's and finding a friend "upon the business of writing, and examining what was the handsomest style in which to address women, and write letters of gallantry" (No. 30), Bickerstaff gave the following advice: I said there was no rule in the world to be made for writing letters, but that of being as near what you speak face to face as you can.. . , If possible, therefore, divert your mistress rather than sigh for her. The pleasant man she will desire for her own sake; but the languishing lover has nothing to hope from, but her pity.

"•^The most desirable system of division would merely be repetitive of the way of dividing the topics of the issues. 33 To show the difference in the two styles, he published two letters, one from "Constant," the other from "Careless." The readers came to regard Bickerstaff as their personal Cupid. Lovers and would-be lovers often used him as the intermediary when no other way existed of communicating with the loved one; and Bickerstaff was only too willing to comply The writer of the following letter has made a use of me, which I did not foresee I should fall into,, , , But I am willing to let them contrive an interview by my means (No. 74). The letter was a love letter from Alexander Landlord, who asked Bickerstaff that it be published in the Tatler. since he had only seen the girl once in public. Two issues later, this cryptic and final reference was made about the outcome of the affair: The lady has answered the letter of Mr, Alexander Landlord, which was published on Thursday last, but in such a manner as I do not think fit to proceed in the affair (No. 76). The only criticism that Bickerstaff ever made against those who brought their love problems to him was about their ap­ parent lack of imagination: Mr. Bickerstaff desires his love-corre­ spondents to.vary the names they shall assume in their future letters; for that he is overstocked with Philanders (No, 201). Sometimes Bickerstaff would create aji elaborate metaphor to explain his use of letters, especially in those issues com­ posed entirely of letters. Just as a "man of business, who makes public entertainment, may sometimes leave his guests 34 and beg them to divert themselves," Bickerstaff said he must "desire my readers to entertain one another" and then he fur­ nished the paper with letters from his "ingenious correspon­ dents" (No. 228). He also compared himself to a man enter- dinner guests, who, because he keeps a constant table, should be allowed to serve leftovers from time to time; then Bick­ erstaff served the "leavings of a former treat" in the form of letters (No. 258).

Even by devoting entire issues to letters, Bickerstaff could not use or begin to acknowledge all of the letters he received. In order to do justice to as many as he thought worthy, his policy was, at irregular intervals, to discuss all of his correspondents in an issue, Tatler No. 146 is devoted to a discussion of the specific set of his corre­ spondents called Complalners. After giving a brief summary of many of their complaints, such as "a gentleman of an an­ cient family in Norfolk is almost out of his wits," and "another, who I believe is serious, complains to me, in a veryr^moving manner, of the loss of a wife," he comes to the conclusion that "there is scarce a calamity in human life that has not produced me a letter," In No, 164, after ob­ serving "on the different tastes that reign in different parts of the city," as revealed in the letters he received, Bicker­ staff can only conclude that

there is no particular in which my correspon­ dents of all ages, conditions, sexes, and complexions, universally agree, except only in their thirst after scandal. 35 In the statements that were made in relation to letters received and used are to be found some of the real functions of the letters in the Tatler, The letters filled up space and enabled the correspondents to do part of Bickerstaff's work; they provided a continuity from issue to issue; in addition, through letters Bickerstaff was able to keep in contact with his readers; and, in this respect, the letters provided subjects and were a way of Introducing the topic to be discussed in an issue; finally, the letters revealed Blck- staff's own intelligence and the effectiveness of the Tatler. The phrase, "to fill up space,? was constantly used by Bickerstaff; he did not hesitate to admit that his work was made easier everytime he "let the labouring oar be managed by my correspondents" (No, l4l). Somehow, he always was able to vary the method of introducing such letters to the public: According to my late resolution, I take the holidays to be no improper season to enter­ tain the town with the addresses of my correspondents (No. 270). But since age and Infirmities forbid my appearance at such public places, the next happiness is to make best use of privacy, and acquit myself of the demands of my correspondents (No, 142), When a letter from the country consumed the whole issue, he said In this parched season, next to the pleasure of going into the country, is that of hearing from it, and partaking the joys of it in description (No. 179). Sometimes the letters were published without ceremony and Introduced by simply saying, "I find here for me the following 36 epistle," or "the boy says, one In a black hat left the fol­ lowing letter." Regardless of how the letters were introduced, one of their functions was "to fill up space" whereby Bick­ erstaff could "find folios contract themselves into octavos, and the labour of a fortnight got over in half a day" (No. 51). If this were the only function, Johnson's doubts of Steele's literary ability would be justified. Too much stress however, has formerly been placed upon this function of the letters. The letters were more than filler. Wlnton attributes Steele's amazing success with his peri­ odicals in part to his attitude toward his audience: Steele knew what they were interested in and he gave it to them. As has already been show^i, when the. readers liked what they read in the Tatler, they wrote Bickerstaff letters of praise; on the other hand, if an issue or a topic was not acceptable to the readers, their dissatisfaction was also communicated by letters. In this manner, Steele, as editor, knew the likes and dislikes of his readers and constructed his issues with that knowledge in mlnd,^^

^^He would have done well to take the advice of the correspondents to whom he refers in the following passage: "I have of late received many epistles, wherein the writers treat me as a mercenary person, for some little hints concerning matters which, they think, I should not have touched upon" (No. 193). The matter referred to was party-writing, a subject which Steele, regardless of his good Intentions to the contrary, often wrote about in his supposedly non-political papers. 37 By keeping in touch with his readers through letters, Steele was often provided with Incidents and topics of which he had not previously been aware but which provided good ma­ terial for his periodical: how is it possible . , . there should have been a battle fought in our very streets of London, and nobody at this end of the town have heard of it? I protest, I who make it my business to inquire after adventures, should never have known this had not the following account been sent me Inclosed in a letter (No,-4l), Whereas Mr. Bickerstaff, by a letter bearing date this twenty-fourth of February, has received Information, that there are in and about the Royal-Exchange a sort of people commonly known by the naime of Whetters (No. 138). This practice of using the letters to provide or to intro­ duce a topic was one of the main functions of the letters. Sometimes the entire letter was published before Bickerstaff made his comments; Charles Sturdy's letter asking what to do about his platonlc relation with a lady introduced the topic for the day: Platonic ladies (No. 32). In No. 255, Addison began with a letter from a chaplain who was dismissed for not offering to rise after the second course of a meal of the family he served; the typical injustice done to such men was the topic of the day. A letter, signed A.J., reading a man of your capacity, Mr. Bickerstaff, should have more noble views, and pursue the true spirit of satire (No. 71), Introduced an essay on the danger of satirical writing. In other issues, the letters were not published but only referred to as the reason for the day's discourse. The essay on 38 Oglers began I am diverted ... by letters which I have received from several ladies, complaining of a certain sect of professed enemies to the repose of the fair sex, called Oglers (No. 145). An issue on Freethinkers began Several letters which I have lately received, give me Information, that some well-disposed persons have taken offence at my using the word Freethinker as a term of reproach (No. 135). Steele's pet topic of dueling was introduced in this same manner: A letter from a young lady, written in the most passionate terms, wherein she laments the misfortune of a gentleman, her lover, who was lately wounded in a duel, has turned my thoughts to that subject (No. 25). Another function of the letters was to provide a con­ tinuity from issue to issue. Certainly each issue was in­ dependent in itself and could stand on its own merits with­ out support of any other issue; this was the way that Steele and Addison wrote them. But each issue was undeniably re­ lated to every other issue, which is not to say they were dependent upon one another; this is also was the way that Addison and Steele wrote them. This continuity, or relation, of the issues was accomplished through the use of letters. The letters freed specific issues from existence in the pres­ ent by tying the issue to previous issues and by looking for­ ward to future issues. The use of letters in this manner can best be seen in specific examples:

I have received the following letter upon the subject of my last paper (No. 150). 39 Upon reading your Tatler on Saturday last, by which we received the agreeable news of so many deaths (No. 99). This last letter was signed "the Master and Company of Up­ holders" and referred to Tatler No. 96. The subject of petticoats had been mentioned several times before this no­ tice was published in No. 113: I have likewise received a female petition, signed by several thousands, praying that I would no longer defer giving judgement in the case of the petticoat. To that end he said, I do design to set apart Tuesday next for the final determination of that matter, which he did. in Tatler No, II6, Finally, the letters used in the Tatler were a way of reassuring Bickerstaff, and Addison and Steele, that the lucubrations of the Tatler were not in vain; the letters al­ so showed the readers not only Bickerstaff's effectiveness but his intelligence, too. The letters of praise and thanks very obviously accomplished this purpose; even the unfriendly letters offered proof in a more subtle way: As it is a frequent mortification to me to receive letters, wherein people tell me, with­ out a name, they know I meant them in such and such a passage; so that very accusation is an argument, that there are such beings in human life, as fall under our description, and that our discourse is not altogether fantas­ tical and groundless (No. 41). The perceptive powers of Bickerstaff were so great that he could tell a person's character from the letter he wrote. In No. 26, after publishing a letter from a "Pretty Fellow," 40 Bickerstaff concludes that the writer is actually a "Smart Fellow" and says I never saw the gentleman; but I know by his letter, he hangs his cane to his button; and by some lines of it he should wear red-heeled shoes. The very next issue contained a letter from Jeffrey Niok- nack who desired to be characterized in the same way. There­ after, the character of correspondents was frequently taken from their letters. From a friend's letter, Bickerstaff was able to say of the writer, "one sees him in an idle hour; but at the same time in the idle hour of a wise man" (No, 112); and he fears that another writer "flatters himself with hopes of success which are altogether groundless, since he does not seem to me so great a fool as he takes himself to be" (No, 124), One entire issue is devoted to the subject of letters as indicators of a person's character. After saying he had received a packet of letters sent from two boys to their father, Bickerstaff says what I thought very remarkable is, that QfcheJ sons . . . gave omens of that sort of character which they now bear, in the first rudiments of thought which they shew in their letters (No. 189). On December 28, 1710, in Tatler No. 269, Steele wrote I find my correspondents are universally offended at me for taking notice so seldom of their letters,. . . I shall hereafter be more careful to answer all lawful ques­ tions and just complaints, as soon as they come to my hands. This was a promise he never meant to keep, at least under the guise of a Tatler, for the next two Issues were the last; 41 and the Tatler left London as suddenly as he had appeared. Bickerstaff might have read in the stars about greater things in the future; if this were the oase, the stars did not lie. CHAPTER III

THE SPECTATOR

On March 1, 1711, two months after the Tatler was sud­ denly discontinued, the first issue of the Spectator appeared. If ever writers outdid themselves, in quantity if not in quali­ ty, Addison and Steele did in the Spectator when compared to the Tatler. The Spectator was published every day except Sunday as compared to the Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday appear­ ance of the Tatler. Over twice as many Spectators. 555, as Tatlers. 271, were written. Significantly, in relation to this thesis, the letters used and the Issues using them were approximately two-and-a-half times more numerous in the Spec­ tator than in th^^ Tatler: 514 letters in 266 issues.

'l must agree with Robert J. Allen's statement in the introduction to Addison and Steele/ Selections from The Tatler and The Spectator (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I96I), p. xi, that "although the best of The Spec­ tator is perhaps no better than the best of The Tatler. the general level of excellence is noticeably higher?^" %y figures slightly disagree with Henry Pettlt's in "Letters to the Editor: Steele's Familiar Way of Writing," He gives no total number of letters but says 262 issues employed them; to Steele he gives 170 issues which "con­ tain almost 400 letters" as opposed to my arrival at 176 issues containing 389 letters; to Addison he gives 58 issues using letters and gives no number of letters used as com­ pared to my giving Addison 60 issues containing 76 letters. Although there is no way of determining which issues and letters I counted, or miscounted, that Pettlt did not count, our final figures are in such close agreement that the discrepancy is of little consequence. In no way do a few Issues or letters one way or the other affect the signifi­ cance of the letters used in the Spectator.

42 43 The Spectator, like the Tatler. was a collaboration of Addison and Steele, supplemented from time to time with con­ tributions of other writers, Addison was responsible for 274 papers as compared to 240 for Steele; John Hughes and Eustace Budgell were the other two major writers with con­ tributions to approximately 50 issues between them,"^ Steele, as in the Tatler, was the editor; and although Addison wrote more issues, Steele was the one known as "Mr. Spectator," and Steele was the one largely responsible for the feeling of in­ timacy the people of London had for that old gentleman. That Steele's use of letters again surpassed Addison's is not surprising. Steele used 389 letters in 174 of the is­ sues written by him; Addison used 76 letters in 60 of his issues. Addison's use of relatively fewer letters than Steele used does not mean that he frowned upon their use and avoided them whenever possible; on the contrary, Addison used the letters in just as many ways, he had as much, if not more, to say about Mr. Spectator's editorial policy toward the use of letters, and he invited the readers to correspond as often as did Steele, Addison wrote Spectator No, 1_ and from the beginning he made the letters a part of the periodical by saying that those who have a mind to correspond with me may direct their letters to the Spectator

^As in the Tatler, the best that can be said of the number of issues given to an author is that it is approxi­ mate . 44 at Mr. Buckley's, In Little Bri­ tain. 4 Addison also made first use of letters, in Spectator No. 8^; and, in a "paper . . . intended for Answer to a Multitude of Correspondents," Spectator No. 1_6, Addison was the first to give explicit instructions to the readers about what they should write: I shall therefore acquaint my Reader, that if he has started any Hint which he is not able to pursue, if he has met with any sur­ prizing Story which he does not know how to tell, if he has discovered any Epidemical Vice which has escaped my Observation, or has heard of any uncommon Virtue which he would desire to publish; in short, if he has any Materials that can furnish out an innocent Diversion, I shall promise him my best Assistance in the working of them up for a publick Entertainment. Instructions concerning where readers should send their letters were given at irregular intervals, usually in a note at the end of the issue and in this form: Letters are directed 'For the Spectator, to be left at Mr. Buckley's, in Little Bri­ tain, post-paid (No. 27). Usually the invitation to correspond was made to the general public, but correspondents of obvious talents were person­ ally encouraged; Spectator No. 30 contained a letter from a member of the Amorous Club: "a gentleman, who, I hope will continue his correspondence," added Mr, Spectator,

^The edition of the Spectator used in this thesis is that edited by Gregory Smith (Four Vols.; London: J. M, Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1961). 45 Such invitations to correspond were unnecessary; readers needed no encouragement to write. All of London, or so it seems from the number of letters received, were like Will Honeycomb, who "had a great Mind to try his Hand at a Spec­ tator" (No. 499). The advantages of appearing in the peri­ odical were stated best by one whose letter did appear: You cannot imagine how much Service it will do me with my Fair one, as well as Reputation with all my Friends, to have something of mine in the Spectator (No. 473). The correspondents not only felt, and rightly so, that pub­ lication in the Spectator would bring them fame; they were certain Mr. Spectator had the ability to solve any problem submitted to him. One correspondent's expectations prompted Mr. Spectator to "wish I could promise my self anything which my Correspondent seems to expect from a Publication of it in this Paper" (No. 294), The faith that readers had in the power of the Spectator to fulfill satisfactorily any request was so great that they promised him anything if he honored their letter by publish­ ing it and/or if the desired effect of the letter was accom­ plished. Sometimes the offer was vague: If I get the 12000 Pound [in a lottery] I'll make thee a handsome present (No. 191); Sir, if I marry this Lady by the Assistance of Your Opinion, you may expect a Favour for it (No. 310). At other times, the readers were explicit about their gifts. Everything from wine, naturally, to several pairs of gloves 46 and a pitch-pipe were given or promised to Mr. Spectator if he would but "consider and pity" the letter involved. One correspondent said he would pray for the Spectator's pros­ perity while, others promised to send more of the same type of writing if Mr. Spectator felt their letters should be published.^

To see that Steele chose the letters on merit rather than on the chance of receiving a gift, one has only to look at the unsuccessful offerings of gifts in the letters that Steele chose not to use; the desire of readers to appear in the Tat­ ler and Spectator is more obvious in those letters which were never published. Readers promised Mr, Spectator everything from "a rundlet of the best norwich-nogg" to the first nose­ gay of spring. One reader added this post-script to his letter; If you love roast-beef, or punch, be ex­ peditious.^

5if a person's reputation were enhanced by that person's having a letter published in the Spectator, how much greater would his fame be if he could become a member of the club? Such fame would be much greater, according to these suppli­ cations of readers shortly after the death and withdrawal of various members of the club: "A certain Country Gentleman . . . sent me up word, that if I would get him chosen in the Place of the Deceased CSir RogerJ, he would present me with a Barrel of the best October I had ever drank in my Life.. . , A Citizen, who subscribes himself Y,Z., tells me that he has one and twenty Shares in the African Com­ pany, and offers to bribe me with the odd one in case he may succeed Sir Andrew Freeport" (No, 550), ^Lillle, Vol. I, Letter No. 21. 47 Bickerstaff even received a threat: I expect myself in print next week, or you shall hear more of me, I can tell you but that, BREAK-YOUR-STAFF, let that be your name henceforward.' The most interesting offer of all defies description; yet, there can be no doubt about its implications. A lady, if she can be called that, signing her name Olotelda, closed her letter with this note: I am tolerably handsome, and have a good fortune, and if your sentiments agree with mine, I will take care you shall know who I am: you understand me. But what was good for Mr. Spectator was not always the best for his readers; so the letter never appeared. As in the letters submitted to the Tatler. the letters to the Spectator were full of praises for the paper and full of desires to be inserted in the same, Mr. Spectator had previously answered Anthony Freeman's statement that "I hope I need not tell you that I desire this may be in your very next" (No. 212), when he wrote to his readers that I shall not trouble you with the Prefaces, Compliments, and Apologies made to me before each Epistle when it was desired to be Inserted (No, 204), Any further statement of the praise of the Spectator and of the desire of readers to appear therein is unnecessary and would be a recapitulation, on a larger scale, of the similar

'^Ibid,, Vol. I, Letter No. 24, ®Ibid., Vol. I, Letter No. 43. 48 discussion in the Tatler chapter. Repetitive, too, would be a discussion of the variety of the pen names of the corres­ pondents and the subjects treated in the letters. However, I would like to clear up a possible misconception concerning the numbe_r of the letters received by the Spectator. With reference to the frequent statements of Mr, Spec­ tator that "My Correspondents grow so numerous, that I cannot avoid frequently inserting their Applications to me" (No, 53) and "I have looked over the several Bundles of Letters which I have received" (No, 377), Henry Pettit says Another of Steele's methods of introducing letters was to create an impression that The Spectator was besieged by correspon­ dent iT9 By so dismissing those statements of the Spectator, Pettit, himself, "creates the impression" that the Spectator was not besieged by letters. While those statements were a good, and frequently employed, method of introducing letters in the Spectator, there is no reason to assume that they were made without foundation. On the contrary, all evidence in­ dicates that such statements were, in fact, true. Even if the validity of Mr. Spectator's references to the many pack­ ets of letters he received is questioned, the existence of a combined total of almost 400 unused letters sent to the Tat­ ler and Spectator and collected by Charles Lillie and Rich­ mond Bond cannot be denied. To be sure, Pettit does not

Pettlt, p. 97. 49 deny their existence; he simply says nothing about them. Statements concerning the great number of letters received were also made when there were no letters to introduce. Also, the fact that Addison, too, referred to the number of cor­ respondents aa often as Steele further refutes Pettit, The types of letter used in the Spectator were even more varied and numerous than the types used in the Tatler. The letters submitted by unknown correspondents and the let­ ters written by Addison and Steele which appeared to have come from correspondents, as has been pointed out, were much more numerous in the Spectator. The letters of the ancients were also more popular in the Spectator; the letters of Pliny, Horace, and Philopinax were used by Mr. Spectator; and he also referred to the letters of Aristaenetus and Phalaris, whose letters are now known to be spurious. Other famous people of the past whose letters appeared in the Spec­ tator were Ann Bbleyn and one Monsieur Balzac,' a letter writer of the early seventeenth century, Steele also con­ tinued the precedent established in the Tatler by publishing six of his own love letters to his wife; of course the letters were not introduced as Steele's, but there was no falsehood involved when he described them as being "Genuine, and the Images of a Worthy Passion , , , and the Representation of her Ifhe old lady who supposedly submitted the letters] own

^Ojjot to be confused ^with the famous novelist of the nineteenth century, Honore de Balzac.

BEXAS TECHNDLGGiCAL COLUEGE 50 Happiness" (No. 142).^^ There were several other types of letters used in the Spectator which deserve a more detailed discussion. For the first time, Steele and Addison published let­ ters sent to them by friends which were never intended to be used in the Spectator. In Spectator No, 39^, Addison wrote:

Looking over the Letters that have been sent me, I chanced to find the following one, which I received about two Years ago from an Ingenious Friend, who was then in Denmark. The letter referred to was dated Copenhagen, May 1, 1710. Ambrose Philips was associated with the British envoy to Denmark for several years and was in Copenhagen from January, 1710 to February", 1711. Letters in Walter Graham's The Let­ ters of Joseph Addison (Oxford, 1941) show that Addison and Philips were corresponding at this time. The letter in ques­ tion was written a year before the Spectator began publication

•'The originals can be seen in Rae Blanchard's The Correspondence of Richard Steele (London, 1941), hereafter referred to as Blanchard. A comparison of the letters sent to Mrs. Steele with the ones published in the Spectator re­ veals that Steele changed nothing but the dates and a few words before publishing them. The dates of the letters as they appeared in the Spectator and the numbers of the origi­ nals in Blanchard are as follows: September 3, I671—Letter No, 211 August 7, 1671—Letter No, 217 October 20, 1671-—Letter No, 221 September 25, I671—Letter No, 223 September 30, I671—Letter No, 225 June 23, 1711—Letter No, 393 51 and, as Addison said, two years before it appeared. Cer­ tainly Philips, if he is the author, and I believe he is, had no intention of his letter being used in such a way. Steele used a letter of Pope's in a similar way and, unlike Addison, felt some repercussions for doing so. The particular letter was published unsigned in Spectator No. 532, but was credited to Pope by Steele in the same issue. As the following letter from Pope to Steele reveals. Pope was not happy with either the appearance of his letter or the use of his name: I am sorry you published that notion about Adrian's verses as mine. Had I imagined you would use my name, I should have expressed my sentiments with more modesty and diffidence, I only sent it to have your opinion, and not to publish my own, which I distrusted,^2 Other contributors to the Spectator were more willing to appear in print; their use of letters to achieve this end reveals that letters had become an accepted part of the for­ mat of the Spectator and indicates an assignment of credit for writing the Spectator where such an assignment has long been overdue. Letters were so much a part of the Spectator that the well-known contributors submitted their work in epistolary form. Budgell, who ranks immediately below Addison and Steele in thirty-seven papers or parts of papers written, submitted and/or used twenty-five letters. Even a writer of established

l^Blanchard, Letter No. 6^^ p. 65. 52 reputation like Budgell had to use the same method of appear­ ing in the Spectator as did lesser writers: by submitting a letter. Whatever the reputation of the writer, his letters were introduced in the same way as were everybody else's, as the following introductions of Budgell's letters show: I am glad that my late going into the Coun­ try has encreased the Number of my Correspon­ dents, one of whom sends me the following letter (No. I6l); I shall this Day entertain my Readers with two or three Letters I have received from my Correspondents (No. 175); I am so well pleased with the following let­ ter, that I am in Hopes it will not be a dis­ agreeable Present to the Publick (No. 307). As can be seen, these introductions in no way differ from those of the letters of hundreds of other unknown correspon­ dents. Of course, there is the possibility that Budgell, and not Steele, Introduced his own letters by completely as­ suming the attitude of Mr. Spectator toward letters. That Budgell did so assume the role of Mr. Spectator in other is­ sues can be easily demonstrated. The only way for one to write a Spectator without submitting a letter was to be Mr. Spectator for the issue one wrote. Part of being Mr. Spec­ tator involved acknowledging and referring to correspondents, Budgell, in the several essays he wrote as Mr, Spectator, perfectly exemplifies this practice: I received an Epistle in particular by the last Post from a Yorkshire Gentleman, who makes heavy Complaints of one Zelinda (No. 365); 53 I cannot but add from my own Experience, that about this Time of the Year Love- Letters come up to me in great Numbers from all quarters of the Nation (No. 365); I am the more confirmed in this Opinion from my having received several Letters (No. 379); In Spectator N£. 325, Budgell says he must not "forget a Letter which I received near a fortnight since from a Lady." In his series on education, Budgell further recognizes the importance of letters in relation to the Spectator, ar.d the Interest of readers in letters, by mentioning a matter which is of use in every Station of Life, and which methinks every Master should teach his Scholars (No. 353), the writing of letters. He goes on to say that it should be the writing of English letters, rather than "perplexing them with Latin Epistles." In an essay on the "Art of writing un­ intelligibly" (No. 379), Budgell refers not only to letters from readers as confirming his opinion but also refers to the letters of various ancients, among them Alexander the Great, which reveal further misunderstandings of other's writings. "The narrow Spirit which appears in the Letters of these my Correspondents," writes Spectator Budgell, "is the less sur­ prising, as it has shewn it self in all ages." The contri­ butions of many other writers. Pope, Hughes, Tickell, and Philips, likewise fulfilled this policy of the Spectator's toward letters. The letters of these writers, while substantiating the fact that the letters were an integral part of the Spectator. 54 raises the possibility that credit for some of the Tatlers, Spectators4 and Guardians has never been properly given by anyone since Steele attempted to acknowledge his debt to the letters in the final issue of the Snectator: The other Assistances which I have had have been conveyed by Letter, sometimes by whole Papers, and other times by short Hints by unknown Hands. I have not been able to trace Favours of this kind, with any Certainty, but to the following Names, which I place in the Order wherein I re­ ceived the Obligation, tho* the first I am going to Name can hardly be mentioned in a List wherein he would not deserve the Precedence. The Persons to whom I am to make these acknowledgements are Mr. Henry Martin, Mr. Pope. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Carey of New-College in Oxford. Mr. Tickell of Queen's in the same University, Mr. Parnelle, and Mr. Eusden of Trinity in Cambridge (No. 555).

To those "unknown hands" belong some of the honor for the success of Addison and Steele's periodicals. Some of them have since been identified; but, unless one has an acquain­ tance with the ordinary populace of early eighteenth century London, an acquaintance which excels that of Steele who was there, the real identities of the letter writers are more meaningless than the names with which they signed their let­ ters. At least the pen names were usually indicative of the topic of the letter. The letter writers who have been iden­ tified are very few: "Orator" Henley, a preacher satirized in the Dune lad; Mr. Golding; John V^eaver, a dancing master; Richard Parker, Fellow of Merton and friend of Steele; Miss Sheppard, English governess in Stockholm and kinswoman of the English poet Sir Fleetwood Sheppard (1634-1698); Mrs. 55 Perry, Miss Sheppard's sister; James Heywood, a linen-draper; and Sir William Scawen, a merchant. The most commonly used signature of the anonymous letters sent to the periodicals was "A.B.," who wrote letters which appeared in the Tatler, Spectator, and the Guardian. The faot that these initials were employed by more than one correspondent 1^ "5 makes this signature more representative than any other signature of the unknown contributors to the periodicals. "A.B." was just as responsible for the success of the Spectator and the Tat­ ler and Guardian, as were Philips, Pope, Hughes and the others. The same editorial policy that guided the use of letters in the Tatler was observed in the Spectator. Mr. Spectator, like Bickerstaff before him, did not hesitate to "dress up" the letters in a better style when they needed correction or to admit that he had done it. Most of the letters received were like Will Honeycomb's in Spectator No. 42£ and required rectification of "some little orthographical mistakes." Only for a special reason would Mr. Spectator allow a letter to appear unaltered: I have received it [a letter] from Oxford, and as it abounds with the spirit of mirth ... I shall set it down word for word as it came to me (No. 17);

^^Richmond Bond's examination of the original manuscripts of the letters sent to the Tatler and Spectator revealed that the letters signed "A.B." which he was able to examine were written by at least four different people. See page 22 and Letters 33, 39, 55, and 75 in New Letters to the Tatler and Spectator. 56 The second Letter is from a Lady of a Mind as great as her understanding.. . .1 have so much Esteem for this Correspondent, that I will not alter a Tittle of what she writes, the' I am thus Scrupulous at the Price of being Ridiculous (No. 95). The readers could not but be aware that their letters were altered before appearing in the Spectator: one correspondent said As to the Cambridge affair, the Humour was really carried on in the Way I describe it. However, you have a full Commission to put out or in, and to do whatever you think fit with it, I have already had the Satisfac­ tion of seeing you take that Liberty with some things I have before sent you (No, 78), Like the above correspondent, most writers were willing to have their letters changed if that process would insure pub­ lication: If you think to print this, pray put it into a better Stile as to the spelling Part (No, 208); I beg that you would put it in a better Dress, and let it come abroad, that my Mistress, who is an Admirer of your Speculations, may see it (No, 366), Some writers made excuses for the poor literary and grammat­ ical qualities of their letters: A young Son of mine, a School-Boy, is my Secretary, so I hope you'll make Allow­ ances (No, 336); Let me desire you to make what Alterations you please, and insert this as soon as pos­ sible. Pardon Mistake by Haste (No, 314). Mr. Spectator answered the last excuse by saying "I never do pardon Mistakes by Haste." In fact, he was tempted some times to lay before the World the 57 plain Letters of my Correspondents in the artless Dress in which they hastily send them (No. 268). Whenever a letter was received that completely satisfied Mr. Spectator, he unequivocally extolled its virtues in order that aspirins oorreepondtnte might be bettor informed as to the type of letter that was acceptable to him: I am more pleased with a Letter that is filled with Touches of Nature than Wit. The following one is of this kind (No. 181); My following Correspondent, who calls her­ self Clarinda, is such a Journalist as I require: She seems by her Letter to be placed in a modish State of Indifference between Vice and Virtue, and to be suscept­ ible to either, were there proper Pains with her (No. 323). The letters in the Spectator were used in the same va­ riety of ways as those in the Tatler. Entire issues were composed of letters, with no comment from Mr. Spectator. Letters were used to illustrate a particular point made by the author of an issue. Some letters were written by char­ acters in the stories told by Mr. Spectator. Steele had no monopoly in this respect, for Addison, too, used the letters in all of the ways mentioned above. The reasons stated in the Spectator for the use of let­ ters were even more numerous than those in the Tatler. Nat­ urally, the merit of some letters "forced" their publication; they had so much weight and good sense that Mr. Spectator could not "forbear inserting" them. The urgency of some writ­ ers necessitated the publication of their letters: there 58 were many letters about which Mr. Spectator said I cannot defer taking Notice of this Letter (No. 178). Mr. Spectator, like Bickerstaff, compared himself to a host entertaining guests, and said This being a Day of Business with me, I must make the present Entertainment like a Treat at an House-Warming, out of such Presents as have been sent me by my Guests. The first Dish which I serve up is a Letter come fresh to my hand (No. 518). A few letters were published for reasons applicable only to themselves: The following Letter being the first that I have received from the learned Univer­ sity of Cambridge. I could not but do my self the Honour o"f publishing it (No. 54); I . . . communicate to the knight Dsir Roger] such Packets as I receive under the Quality of Spectator. The following Letter chancing to please him more than ordinary, I shall publish it at his request (No. 127). No letter was published unless Mr. Spectator could "question not but it will be as acceptable to the Reader" (No. 23) as it was to himself. Finally, the actual functions of the letters in the Tat­ ler were the same in the Spectator; but in the latter peri­ odical, the functions were more clearly and frequently revealed to the reader. That the letters helped to "fill up" the paper and to do some of his work was not denied by Mr. Spec­ tator: I shall not put my self to any further pains for this Day's Entertainment, than 59 barely to publish the Letters and Titles of Petitions from the Play-house (No. 36); But of a firm Regard to Impartiality, I print these Letters, let them make for me or not (No. 158); I shall add two other Letters on different Subjects, to fill up my Paper (No. 205); Having a great deal of Business upon my Hands at present, I shall beg the Reader's Leave to present him with a Letter that I received about half a Year ago (No. 396); For want of Time to substitute something else in the Room of them, I am present obliged to publish Compliments above my Desert in the following Letters (No. 461). As in the Tatl6r. the letters in the Spectator were used to provide continuity from issue to issue and to provide and introduce subjects about which Mr. Spectator could give his views. The latter function can be seen not only from the letters as they were used but in the words of Mr. Spectator himself: I receive a double Advantage from the Letters of my Correspondents; first, as they shew me which of my Papers are most acceptable to them; and in the next Place, as they furnish me with Materials for new Speculations. Sometimes indeed I do not make use of the Letter it self, but form the Hints of it into Plans of my own Invention; sometimes I take the Liberty to change the Language or Thought into my own Way of speaking and thinking, and always (if it can be done without Pre;)udice to the Sense) omit the many Compliments and Applauses which are usually bestowed upon me. Besides the two Advantages above-mentioned, which I receive from the Letters that are sent me, they give me an opportunity of lengthening out my Paper by the Skilful management of the subscribing Part at the end of them, which perhaps does not a little conduce to the Ease, both of my self and Reader (No. 271). 60 The first advantage given above was an important one. The letters did enable Addison and Steele to keep in touch with their readers. By being so informed, they were able to know which subjects were popular with the readers and which were not; as a result, some of the subjects written upon in the Spectator, as in the Tatler. were determined by the whims of the readers: The many Letters which come to me from Per­ sons of the best Sense in both Sexes (for I may pronounce their Characters from their Way of Writing) do not a little encourage me in the Prosecution of this my Under­ taking (No. 124); I am more inclined to this, because I have several Letters which Complain to me that my Female Readers have not understood me for some Days last past (No. 66), The rapport that Mr. Spectator established with his readers was so great that Eve Afterday, the mistress of an­ other man, wrote Mr. Spectator that I desire you would take me out of this wicked way, and keep me yourself (No. 190); and one man told him if you please to be at my House on Thurs­ day next, I make a Ball for my Daughter, and you shall see her Dance, or, if you will do her that Honour, Dance with her (No. 466). The letters enabled Mr. Spectator to write about sub­ jects with which he did not care to become directly associated As all Parts of human Life come under my Ob­ servation, my Reader must not make unchari­ table Inferences from my speaking knowingly of that sort of Crime which is at present treated of. He will, I hope, suppose I know it only from the Letters of Correspondents (No. 182). 61 In this connection, Mr. Spectator gave the following reasons for frequently writing the letters himself: First, out of the Policy of those who try their Jest upon another, before they own it themselves. Secondly, because I would extort a little Praise from such who will never applaud any thing whose Author is known and certain. Thirdly, because it gave me the opportunity of introducing a great variety of Characters into my work, which could not have been done, had I al­ ways written in the Person of the Spec­ tator. Fourthly, because the Dignity Spectatorial would have suffered, had I published as from my self those several ludicrous Compositions which I ascribed to fictitious Names and Characters. And lastly, because they often serve to bring in, more naturally, such additional Re­ flections as have been placed at the End of them (No. 542). The letters also provided a change of pace for the readers: After the above melancholy Narration, it may perhaps be a Relief to the Read­ er to peruse the following Expostulation (No. 80). Perhaps one of the major functions of the letters was to carry out the purpose of the periodical. Since reform of people and manners had been undertaken by Mr. Spectator from the beginning of his paper, he records his use of let­ ters to that end in Spectator No. ^0^: but as it is the chief Business of this Paper to roar out popular Errors, I must endeavour to expose the Folly and Super­ stition of those Persons, who, in the common and ordinary Course of Life, lay any stress upon Things of so uncertain, shadowy and chimerical a Nature. This I cannot do more effectually than by the following Letter (No. 505). 62 If the objects of his corrective pen did not improve, Mr. Spectator's only way of knowing was by letter: If the following Enormities are not amended upon the first Mention, I desire farther Notice from my Correspondents (No. 145). Because the word "Spectator" was most usually understood as one of the Audience at publick Representations in our Theatres, I seldom fail of many Let­ ters relating to Plays and Operas (No. 22). And, from Bickerstaff, Mr. Spectator received the office of being the Cupid of London: I am not at all displeased that I am become the Courier of Love, and that the Distressed in that Passion convey their Complaints to each other by my means. The following Let­ ters have lately come to my Hands, and shall have their Place with great Willingness (No. 204). Being "Courier of Love," Mr. Spectator published more than a few love letters; and as oould have been expected, being an arranger of lovers soon led to being an arrajiger of marriages, through the mail of course: If any of Your Correspondents enquire for a Spouse for an honest Country Gentleman, whose Estate is not dipped, and wants a Wife that can save half his Revenue, and yet make a better Figure than any of his Neighbours of the same Estate with finer bred Women; You shall have further Notice from (No. 332) Martha Busle, Deborah Thrifty, and Alice Early. The Importance and significance of the letters to Addi­ son and Steele cannot be better illustrated than in the way the members of the Spectator Club were accounted for, or eliminated. In the closing Issues of the Spectator. The news 63 of the death of Sir Roger was announced in a letter from his butler, Edward Biscuit, which appeared in Spectator No. 517. Will Honeycomb wrote a letter in Spectator No. 530 announcing his marriage and retirement to the country. Cap­ tain Sentry wrote a letter in Spectator No. 544 saying he had come into the succession of Sir Roger's estate, elimi­ nating himself from the Club. Finally, Sir Andrew Freeport, the only prominent member of the Club who was still around, wrote a letter in Spectator No. 549 explaining his withdrawal to the country. Letters, then, were used to fulfill a rather unpleasant task in the Spectator, that of helping the peri- dical to its eventual end. By using letters to eliminate some of London's favorite fictional characters, Addison and Steele were able to add a touch of realism to, and to soften the harshness of, their demise. Even if the use of letters in the Tatler left any possible doubt about the Integral position of letters in Addison and Steele's periodicals, the use of letters in the Spectator does not. The letter was the method of contributing to the Spectator; any contributions made otherwise were not done so without good reason. One of the few contributors who did not use the letter form said, I have Industriously obscured the whole by the Addition of one or two Circumstances of no Consequence, that the Person it is drawn from might still be concealed; and that tho Writer of it might not be in the least suspected, and for some other Reasons, ^ c^^-se not to give the Form of a Letter TNO. 30277" 64 Not only were letters recognized as a form in the Spec­ tator, the form and style of the letters so used also gained recognition. The Spectator letter was labelled "the Familiar Way of Writing" by Bob Short in a letter which exemplifies the style: "Sir,

"Having a little Time upon my Hands, I could not think of bestowing it better, than in writing an Epistle to the Spectator, which I now do, and am, "Sir, "Your humble Servant" (No. 473). This style was carried to the ultimate extreme by Robin Short­ er, who said he was "not afraid to let the World see which is the deeper Man of the two" (No. 485), he or Bob Short: "Mr. Spectator, "I only say, that it is impossible for me to say how much I am, "Yours, "Robin Shorter" The letters, and Mr. Spectator's responsibility to his correspondents, remained in the periodical to the end. The final issue, Spectator No. 555, closed with this sad, almost melancholy, note of apology: The Ingenious Letters sign'd the Weather- Glass, with several others, were receiv'd, but came too late. One senses that Steele might have been tempted to publish one more issue in order to demonstrate to his readers just a few more "Ingenious Letters." A few weeks later, he was able to do exactly that in the Guardian. CHAPTER IV

THE GUARDIAN

The end of winter and the beginning of spring must have seemed to Steele to be an especially promising time of year to embark upon the writing of a new periodical. His three major periodicals were begun in this season. Perhaps the same temperament which had led him on a search for the phi­ losophers' stone earlier in his life and which enabled him to fulfill successfully the role of a fictitious astrologer for two years was also responsible, in Steele's way of think­ ing, for an association of the new blossoming forth of plants every spring with a new blossoming forth of wit, learning, and morality in the same season. At any rate, the Guardian began publication March 12, 1713, three months after the last issue of the Spectator had appeared. That the Guardian was directly related to the Tatler and Spectator was obvious from the first issue. A fictional character was introduced as author: Nestor Ironsides, a name suggestive of a more sedate and serious Isaac Bickerstaff and Mr. Spectator, which he was, had assumed the office of guardian of London life. A varia­ tion of the club format of the Spectator was retained in the Lizard family, to which Ironsides had been assigned to be the guardian by Sir Ambrose Lizard, lately deceased, who had been

See Graham, pp. 429-430, and Wlnton, pp. 52-53.

65 66 Ironsides' closest friend from the time they had attended college together. Like the Spectator, the Guardian appeared six days a week for the length of its publication, March 12, 1713 to October 1, 1713. The same variety of topics that had been discussed in the two earlier periodicals also pro­ vided the subject matter of the Guardian, so much so that the Guardian can be called, as Samuel Johnson observed, a con­ tinuation of the Spectator. Being so similar to the Tatler and Spectator, the Guardian also continued the same use of letters established by its predecessors.

Steele wrote the most papers, 82, and used the most let­ ters, 81 in 44 issues. Addison wrote 53 issues, using 43 letters in 26 of them. Other known contributors. Pope, Berkeley, Parnell, Wotton, and Pearce, also used letters in their contributions or contributed to the Guardian by way of 2 letter; significantly, Berguer, in his preface to the Guard­ ian, refers to these gentlemen, not as contributors to the Tatler. Spectator, and Guardian, but as "occasional corres­ pondents." Pope wrote the first letter that appeared in the Guardian (No. 4). Using the name of Bob Short, who was the 3 expert on the "Familiar Way of Writing" in the Spectator. Pope submitted his now famous account of the Short Club in the form of letters (Nos. 91 and 92). Berkeley signed his

2 The edition of the Guardian used in this thesis is that found in Vols. XVI-XVIII of The British Essayists, ed. L. T. Berguer. See footnote i on page 9. ^See p. 64. 67 letters "Ulysses Cosmopolita." Obviously, as in the Tatler and Spectator, these writers, being well aware of the estab­ lished position of letters in the format of the Guardian. wrote their contributions accordingly. The Instructions for those wishing to correspond with the Guardian were given to the general reader in the first issue:

And all persons who have any thing to commu­ nicate to me, are desired to direct their letters (postage-paid) to Nestor Ironsides, Esq. at Mr. Tonson's in the Strand. Whereas letters had been the accepted method of communi­ cating readers' desires and sentiments to Bickerstaff and Mr. Spectator, Ironsides announced that letters would be the only way to communicate with him: I declare, before hand, that I will at no time be conversed with any other way than by letter (No. 1). In addition, the Guardian added another dimension to the use of letters in periodicals: encouraging readers to correspond by providing a special receptacle for their letters. In Guardian No. £§.» Addison wrote that on the twentieth instant it is my intention to erect a lion's head . . . This head is to open a most wide and voracious mouth, which shall take in such letters and papers as are conveyed to me by my correspondents, it being my resolution to have a particular regard to all such matters as come to my hands through the mouth of the lion . . . Whatever the lion swallows I shall digest for the use of the public ... It will be set up in Button's coffee-house in Covent-garden, who is directed to shew the way to the lion's head, and to in­ struct any young author how to convey his works into the mouth of it with safety and secrecy. 68 The Guardian, continuing the policy begun by the Tatler and Spectator of not neglecting the fair sex, announced a plan to erect a unicorn's head as depository for the letters of female readers; in the same issue, Nestor also revealed how he planned to use the two heads: Out of these two magazines I shall supply the town from time to time with what may tend to their edification, and at the same time carry on an epistolary correspondence between the two heads. As both these monsters will be very insatiable, and de­ vour great quantities of paper, there will be no small use redound from them to that manufacture in particular (No. 114). Although little was written concerning the unicorn's head after this announcement, the lion's head became a frequent source for material in the Guardian; several issues, which were composed entirely of letters from the lion's head, were usually entitled "Roarings of the Lion" and "More Roarings from the Lion." More than one letter was Introduced by Ironsides* statement that I shall here present them with a letter ... as it was vesterday conveyed to me through the lion's mouth (No. 116). The device of the lion's head provided correspondents with a novel way of submitting their letters and gave some variety to the essays in the Guardian. Certainly this unknown cor­ respondent must have accurately expressed the sentiments of all readers when he said I find that every body is very much delighted with the voice of your lion,(No. 139). So delighted were readers with the voice of the lion that when he was silent for any length of time, all kinds of 69 conjectures were raised in attempts to explain that silence. One of these periods of silence occurred after Addison had published some letters under the heading of "More Roarings of the Lion" in Guardian No. 124. For the next nine issues, the lion was not even mentioned; in the meantime, according to Ironsides, several erroneous explanations had arisen in the minds of readers: My lion having given over roaring for some time, I find that several stories have been spread abroad in the country to his disad­ vantage. One of my correspondents tells me, it is confidently reported of him in their parts, that he is silenced by authority; another informs me, that he hears he was sent for by a messenger, who had orders to bring him away with all his papers, and that upon examination, he was found to contain several dangerous things in his maw, I must not omit another report , . . that he is starved for want of food, and that he has not had a good meal's meat for this fort­ night (No. 134). Ironsides said that all of these reports were groundless and answered them by explaining that my lion has not roared for these twelve days past, by reason that his prompters have put very ill words in his mouth, and such as he could not utter with com­ mon honour and decency. To be sure, letters had been published in the intervening Issues, but none of the Issues, Nos. 125 through 133, had been written by Addison; and Addison was the only writer of the Guardian who used the device of the lion's head in re­ lation to letters to any great extent. Although such a way of introducing and using letters that the lion's head provided seemed perfectly made for 70 Steele's way of writing, he rarely mentioned it in his issues, whether he used letters or not. Addison introduced the lion's head and the unicorn to the public; Addison, in effect, was the one who made the lion roar in the Guardian. Daniel But­ ton, at whose coffee-house the lion's head was erected and who obviously received benefit of free advertisement and in­ creased customer traffic because of the lion's connection with the Guardian, was a former servant of Addison; in fact, Addison had staked Button, so to speak, in the coffee-house venture. Naturally Addison placed his receptacle to receive letters to the Guardian in a coffee-house where he had per­ sonal interest. This is not to say that Steele was not interested in the undertaking nor that he neglected it. Steele, with Ad­ dison, was a supporter of Button's; he published a letter from Button in Guardian No. 85 which advertised the coffee­ house. But Steele, during most of the time the Guardian ap­ peared, had his mind on other topics, all named politics. This Interest in politics had been indicated by Ironsides' statement in the first issue that The parties amongst us are too violent to make it possible to pass them by without observation. By the time Button's coffee-house and lion's head appeared

4 The letter may have been signed "Daniel Button" and it may have expressed Button's sentiments, but it was cer­ tainly not written by him, as I will show in the last part of this chapter. 71 in the pages of the Guardian. Steele was waging, through his own essays in the Guardian. a heated political battle with the Tory paper, The Examiner, and, unfortunately, with his former friend, Jonathan Swift. In addition, Steele ran for and was elected Member of Parliament during this same period of time, Augustas-, 1713. Steele, then, was really not in­ terested in writing an entertaining periodical or in estab­ lishing an Intimacy and close bond with his readers, which is exactly what the erection of the lion's head and the use of letters did; as a result, Steele's use of letters dimin­ ished in the last half of the Guardian and his mention and utilization of the lion's head was virtually non-existent. Fortunately Addison, who was well aware of the role the letters had played in the popularity and success of the Tat­ ler and Spectator, was still Interested in writing an enter­ taining periodical, popular with everyone, which meant being as free of politics as possible. Where such responsibility had been more or less Steele's in the Tatler and Spectator. now Addison fulfilled it by using letters and the device of the lion's head to increase the Interest of readers in writ- 5 ing to and reading the Guardian.

^If there is still any doubt that the letters would have an Integral part in the periodicals even without Steele, one has only to look at the eighth volume of the Spectator. The Spectator was revived for a short period of time, June 18, 1714 to December 20, 1714, by Addison and Tickell; while others contributed, these two wrote most of the Issues. Steele had nothing whatsoever to do with this final volume. Yet the letters were just as prominent in this short revival 72 The editorial policy of Ironsides toward the letters used in the Guardian was much the same as Bickerstaff's and Mr. Spectator's had been before him. He informed his readers what he did and did not want submitted: I design this for the last time that my lion shall roar upon the subject during this season, which I give public notice of for the sake of my correspondents, that they may not be at an unnecessary trouble or expense in furnishing me with any informations relating to the tucker before the beginning of next winter, when I may again resume that point, if I find occasion for it (No. 140). He required his letters to be in the same style of writing as were the letters of the Tatler and Spectator; as a result, most of the letters in the Guardian closed with "Your most humble and most obedient servant," or some variation thereof.^ When the style of the letters did not suit him. Ironsides did not hesitate to rewrite and otherwise edit them nor to admit he had done so: I . . . desire my correspondent to excuse me, if I do not publish either the pre­ face or conclusion of his letter, but only the critical part of it (No. 110). of the Spectator as they had been in the original, and in the Tatler and Guardian. Any attempts "to lay the blame" for the use of letters entirely on Steele, as some detractors would do, are ridiculous. The letters were so much a part, and an important part, of the periodicals that they re­ mained as such long after Steele had gone 6ff to the polit­ ical wars and was no longer associated with the "entertain­ ment of the city." "See page 16. 73 The most concrete proof of Ironsides' policy is offered by a letter in Guardian No. 85., not signed by some fictitious pen name but by the aforementioned Daniel Button: I have observed that this day you make mention of Will's coffee-house, as a place where people are too polite to hold a man in discourse by the button. Every body knows your honour frequents this house; therefore they will take an advantage a- gainst me, and say, if my company was civil as that at Will's, you would say so: there­ fore pray your honour do not be afraid of doing me justice, because people would think it may be a conceit below you on this occasion to name the name of your humble servant, Daniel Button. As can be seen, this letter is written in the same style that characterizes all of the letters in Addison and Steele's periodicals; conceivably, this style could be copied by other well-educated writers, as some of the unpublished, therefore unedited, letters submitted to the periodicals reveal. Daniel Button, however, was not a well-educated writer; in fact, he was barely literate if the following examples of his writing, taken from bills and other notices sent to Mrs. Addi­ son, are any indication of his literary abilities: It Includes such items as "pad for my Ladys gar­ ters—7-0," "for an hondred of wall noots—2-0," "to apor man in covent garden—0-3," "for me and the horse in the Sitty—0-8," "p^ for my Ladys cloggs—3-6," "to apore women—0-2."'

7These quotations are from the Egerton MSS. 1973, folio 65, in the British Museum as quoted by Arthur L. Cooke in "Addison's Aristocratic Wife," PMLA. Vol. LXXII (June, 1953), pp. 373-389. 74 Button's letter in the Guardian was certainly well-edited by Ironsides, if not written entirely by that old gentleman. The same types of letters were used in the Guardian that had been used in the Tatler and Spectator. The pre­ sence of letters from real and fictitious correspondents to the Guardian goes without saying; in addition, the letters from known correspondents. Pope, Berkeley, and others, have already been mentioned. Only one letter from an ancient letter writer appeared, that from Alexander to Aristotle, which was published by Addison. Addison, too, published some letters that he had written himself while in Europe. Two appeared in Guardian No. 101, which proved so popular that Addison wrote three issues later On Tuesday last I published two letters written by a gentleman in his travels. As they were applauded by my best readers, I shall this day publish two more from the same hand. Actually, these four letters were composites of five of Addi­ son's travel letters which may be found in Walter Graham's edition of Addison's letters.8 Finally, the Guardian used a type of letter which had not been used in the Tatler or Spectator. For the first time, Steele wrote letters to himself, Nestor Ironsides, and signed them with his own name, Richard Steele. His doing this must have confused some of his less intellectual readers. In

®See Walter Graham, "Addison's Travel Letters," P^., Vol. XV (April, 1936), pp. 97-102. 75 Guardian No. ^, Ironsides (Steele) wrote It happens that the letter, which was in one of my papers concerning a lady ill treated by the Examiner . . . was written by one Steele. Immediately after these comments, he, Ironsides-Steele, published a letter, also from Steele. In Guardian :JO. 63. another letter signed "Richard Steele" was published, which also dealt with Steele's argument with The Examiner. Steele's use of the type of letter last mentioned re­ veals two admirable qualities of his character. First, al­ though Steele could have remained anonymous as the author of the letters in question, he did not. In Spectator No. 542, one of the advantages Addison gave for writing the letters and publishing them as if they came from another correspon­ dent was the Dignity Spectatorial would have suffered, had I published as from my self those several ludicrous Compositions which I ascribed to fictitious Names and Characters. For the first time, in the Guardian, there was a real advan- tage to be had in remaining anonymous. Steele was writing against the Tories, who were then in power; by openly admitting that he was the author of such libelous sentiments, Steele ran the risk of ruining not only his political life, but his en­ tire life.9 He had the courage to sign his own name when he

9Thls is what eventually happened. The opinions written in these Guardians, and the same sentiments expressed in the Enpclishman and the Crisis, led to Steele's expulsion from Parliament. Naturally when the Whigs gained control after the death of Queen Anne, Steele was reinstated to the good graces of the government and knighted by King George. 76 could have so easily hidden behind the character of Ironsides or some fictitious pen name. Second, these political letters show how well he could simultaneously play the double role of Richard Steele, political writer, and Nestor Ironsides, periodical essayist, and keep the two separated. The polit­ ical writing of the Guardian was done, not by Ironsides but Steele. In fact, before presenting a letter signed by Steele and dealing with his argument with The Examiner, Iron­ sides said I am obliged, fo:.' many reasons, to insert this first letter, though it takes me out of my way (No. 63). Naturally, this letter was not "out of" Steele's way; in fact, the political views expressed in the Guardian were exactly what Steele wanted to bring before the public. But, as Iron­ sides, Steele realized that such politically oriented letters were incongruous in a periodical, which, was devoted to the entertainment of its readers and the improvement of their manners and tastes. With the exception of also allowing Steele to express his political views, the letters in the Guardian had the same functions as did those in the two earlier periodicals. They supplied and were a way of introducing new subject matter. They connected, by reference, past and future issues to pres­ ent Issues, thereby providing a continuity throughout the periodical. Their publication created an intimacy with the guardian's readers by allowing those readers to aid in writing and to determine what was written in the Guardian; the readers 77 justifiably felt that the Guardian was their periodical be­ cause of the part they had in its production by way of let­ ters. And, as always, the letters did help "to fill up" an issue. The only reference that Steele made about his using letters from the lion, occurred in Guardian No. l42: Being obliged, at present, to attend a par­ ticular affair of my own, I do empower my printer to look into the arcana of the lion and select out of them such as may be of public utility. The date of the above issue was August 24, 1714. Certainly Steele was thankful for the availability of the letters in the lion at such a time, for the "particular affair" happened to be his election to Parliament, which took place the next day; he was definitely too busy when the deadline approached for the above issue. This same Interest of Steele in politics, which had be­ gun to be exhibited regularly in the essays of the Guardian, was the reason for the sudden discontinuation of the period­ ical in No. 175 on October 1, 1713. Because Steele wanted to write a completely politically oriented periodical, he gave up the Guardian in favor of the Englishman, which he began writing five days after the last of the Guardians was published. Even though Addison and Steele never again wrote a peri­ odical of the same caliber and success of the Tatler. Spectator. and Guardian, the letter,, in various forms, was a prominent feature in most of their later periodicals. The Englishman. 78 although mainly political, used the letters in much the same way as did the earlier periodicals: Steele asked for and re­ ceived letters from correspondents and he wrote letters from fictitious correspondents himself. The Lover, February 25 to May 25, 1714, was composed mostly of letters to or from the ideal lover, Marmaduke Myrtle. The Reader. April 22 to May 10, 1714, used a few letters in the nine issues of its appearance. As the titles of Steele's next two periodicals Indicate, Town Talk, in a Letter to a Lady in the Country, December 17, 1715 to February 13, 1716 and Chit-Chat, in a Letter to a Lady in the Country, three issues from March 3 to March 16, 1716, were both in the form of letters. All of these periodicals are of minor importance; none of them cap­ tured the quality that had been a part of the Tatler. Spec­ tator, and Guardian. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Most scholars and editors of the Tatler. Spectator, and Guardian have viewed the letters used by Addison and Steele as either unimportant or, if worthy of comment, as filler to which Steele resorted when he got lazy or ran out of material. Whether total ignorance or a superficial examination of the use of letters is the cause of these two views, both are wrong: this study has demonstrated that the letters used in the Tatler. Spectator, and Guardian are an integral part of the periodicals. The number of letters used and the frequency of their appearance are enough to make the letters a significant part of these periodicals. Exactly 860 letters or parts of letters were used in 463 issues of the total number of 1001 issues of these three periodicals. Seen in another way, this is an average of almost two letters in every other issue for one thousand Issues. Another Indication that the editors considered these letters as an Integral part of their overall plan is that most of the letters dealt with the same variety of subject matter as did the essays themselves. Everything from love to liter­ ature and fig-leaves to Freethinking sooner or later appeared m a letter. The letters revealed the Interests and tastes of not only Addison and Steele but eighteenth century Londoners.

"^ 79 80 The functions of the letters are the real key to their significance in the periodicals: (1) the letters provided a continuity from issue to issue, thus creating an organic unity of the periodicals as a whole; (2) the letters provided and were a way of Introducing new subject matter; (3) the letters, by filling up space, enabled the periodicals to ap­ pear when deadlines came sooner than creative Inspiration to the editors, who most of the time had six deadlines a week to meet; (4) the letters became the way for readers and for writers of established reputation, such as Pope, Swift, and Budgell, to contribute to the periodicals; (5) the letters helped "to enliven Morality with Wit, and to temper Wit with Morality," the stated purpose of the essays; and, per­ haps most Important of all, (6) the letters established an Intimate relation between Addison and Steele and their readers. Since Steele was the chief editor of all three period­ icals, he obviously used more letters in each than did Addi­ son or anyone else. As such, he was responsible not only for the periodical's popularity but for making sure every issue appeared when it was supposed to. Steele was also the person identified as Bickerstaff, Mr. Spectator, and, as his name implies, Nestor Ironsides. Any letters addressed to those characters were, in a sense, meant for Steele. Thus Steele's greater use of letters can be attributed to his greater responsibility. But Addison, too, whenever he was 81 responsible for the publication of the periodicals, used the letters as often and in the same ways as did Steele. Addi­ son used the letters for much the same reasons that writers like Pope and Budgell did: he recognized the fact that the letters were essentially a part of the periodicals. For example, in the Guardian. Addison's use of letters was in the same proportion to his total number of issues as was Steele's; and his use of letters in that periodical is more significant because the lion's head to receive letters was almost entirely his project. In the last volume of the Spec­ tator, written by Addison and Tickell two years after the end of the first Spectator, the letters were just as prominent as in the three periodicals discussed in this thesis, even though Steele had no connection whatsoever with this revival. Addison and Steele, in a sense, created the periodical essay and were, in the Tatler. Spectator, and Guardian, the greatest writers in the genre. These periodicals are read today more because of the interesting character sketches of Sir Roger de Coverly and others and Addison's literary crit­ icism than because of the letters. But the nature of the periodical essay, as conceived by Addison and Steele, in­ cluded a regular use of letters. Thus these letters were an Integral part of the format of these periodicals, simul­ taneously contributing and attesting to the popularity and success of the Tatler. Spectator, and Guardian. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Addison, Joseph, Steele, Richard and Others. Guardian. Vols. XVI-XVIII of The British Essayists. Edited by L.T. Berguer. London: T. and J. Allman, 1823. Spectator. 4 vols. Edited by 0. Gregory Smith, London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1961. . Tatler. Vols. I-V of The_ British Essayists. Edited by L.T. Berguer. London: T. and J. Allman, 1823. Blanchard, Rae (ed.). The Correspondence of Richard Steele. London: Oxford University Press, 1941. Bond, Richmond P. (ed.). New Letters to the Tatler and Spec­ tator. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1959. Graham, Walter (ed.). The Letters of Joseph Addison. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1941. Lillie, Charles. Original and Genuine Letters Sent to the Tatler and Spectator During the Time those Works were publishing. None of which have been before Printed. London: 1725.

Secondary Sources

Addison, Joseph, and Steele, Richard. Selections from The Tatler and The Spectator. Edited by Robert J. Allen. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Bateson, F.W. "The Errata in The Tatler," Review of English Studies. Vol. 5 (April, 1929), 155-166. Bond, Richmond P. (ed.). Studies in the Early English Peri­ odical. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1957. Chambers, Robert D. "Addison at Work on the Spectator." Modern Philology. Vol. LVI (February, 1959), 145-153. Cooke, Arthur L. "Addison's Aristocratic Wife," Publications of The Modem Language Association, Vol. LXXII (June, 1953T7 373-389. 82 83 Graham, Walter. "Addison's Travel Letters," Philological Quarterly. Vol. XV (April, 1936), 97-102. English Literary Periodicals. New York: T. Nelson and Sons, 1930. Hodgart, M.J.C. "The Eighth Volume of the Spectator." Review of English Studies, Vol. 5 New Series (1954), 367-387. Hughes, Helen Sard. "English Epistolary Fiction Before Pamela," The Manly Anniversary Series. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1923, pp. 156-169. Irving, William Henry. The Providence of Wit in the English Letter Writers. Durham: Duke University Press, 1955. Johnson, Samuel. Lives of the English Poets. Vol. II. Edited by G.B. Hill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. Pettit, Henry. "Letters to The Editor: Steele's Familiar Way of Writing," University of Colorado Studies. Series in Language and Literature. No. 9 (August, 1963), 92-99. Symonds, R.V. The Rise of English Journalism. Exeter: A. Wheaton and Company, Ltd., 1952. Wlnton, Calhoun. Captain Steele. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1964.